Should smacking children be banned in the UK?

NorthernMonkey Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 04:53:08 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook



Following on from the controversial debate on abortion, here's another human rights question in the news today.

This time, I think ministers have made the wrong decision.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7062424.stm

Earlier today Childrens' Minister Kevin Brennan said the government will not support an outright ban on smacking children in the UK.

The excuse he gave is that there wasn't enough popularity for the idea amongst the public. This excuse isn't good enough for me - human rights should not be put down to a popularity contest, the government should do what is right whether the public agree with them or not. We don't need to win approval on every single issue (we certainly haven't in the past), just so long as people broadly approve of our record in government at General Election time.

England's Children's Commissioner, Sir Al Aynsley-Green, said he was "deeply disappointed" and saw this as a "missed opportunity".

I agree. My logic behind banning smacking is that if I were to hit my next-door neighbour, I'd go to jail. Yet if I were to hit my children (providing no severe bruising was left) then that would be fine under the law. How absurd. Children are the most physically vulnerable people in society and yet they're the only group of people whom adults are allowed to be physically violent to.

Parents of course have the right to discipline their own kids, but that discipline should not extend to using violence. It demonstrates a lack of control by parents taking out their anger on kids who don't know any better and of course, children are too small to fight back.


So I think the Labour party should stand side by side with the NSPCC here and look to ban corporal punishment against children completely. Violence against children of any kind is inexcusable. It's already been banned in many European countries already - see here for details:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment

I'll also be interested to see how those who have holier-than-thou attitudes against abortions view this one. Will their moral outrage at harming potential children extend to moral outrage at harming living, breathing, fully alive children I wonder?



tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Should smacking children be banned in the UK? | 65 comments (65 topical)

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#1)

by Prbo on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 05:38:02 PM GMT

"I'll also be interested to see how those who have holier-than-thou attitudes against abortions view this one. Will their moral outrage at harming potential children extend to moral outrage at harming living, breathing, fully alive children I wonder?"

I'm not sure you've got the right approach to this whole political debate, NorthernMonkey.  People are entitled to have their views on this, no matter what your thoughts may be.  You'll be unsurprised to hear that I think this is a slightly less important issue that abortion, if one concedes that abortion is murder whereas smacking is not. 

However, that aside, it seems a sensible decision to me.  Your reasoning in your post makes sense, but I don't think it quite takes account of the different nature of children as compared with adults.  Parents are responsible for bringing up children, and part of the nature of growing up is testing boundaries, particularly when distinguishing between right and wrong.  If really troublesome children realise that their parents are unwilling/will not ever take physical action against them, then they will run riot, confident in the fact that no-one will stop them.  Child discipline should always have the option of smacking, but not of course serious physical violence - noone could condone that. 


Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#2)

by Parishpumpspin on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 06:05:24 PM GMT

Genuinily not sure on this, I consider any violence towards kids plain wrong but I ain't depriving myself of any tool which helps me keep mine safe.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#4)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 06:52:09 PM GMT

So how do parents in countries like Sweden, Germany or New Zealand cope where smacking has been banned?

Do we just have naughtier children in this country?

What an absurd notion you have where you condone violence as a corrective measure. I get irritated by some adults, it doesn't mean I go and hit them because I know I would get put in jail.

I would never smack any child and plenty of parents do not smack their children either - do you think these children "run riot" as you put it, because I can tell you that's simply not true. Discipline works even better when there's no violence involved. Smacking just teaches kids that violence is the answer to life's problems.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#3)

by Loz on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 06:14:28 PM GMT

Ar5e you honestly trying to compare abortion to a smack? That's absurd.

I have nothing against smacking - I was smacked as a child, I know plenty of other people that have, and in the long run it has (I hope) contributed to the sort of person I see myself as today, and I can clearly state that it has not affected my relationship with my parents who I love no less and am very close to.

I would rather efforts be focused on parents who neglect their children in other ways.

A moderate and appropriate smack is a way of parenting some parents use - I don't think we should take it away from them.

That does not extend to abuse.

It is a difficult one to judge - but ultimate the sort of parents who smack as a method of parenting might be affected - but are you believing for a minute that parents that beat their children will be detered?


Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#5)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 07:00:00 PM GMT

Of course they'll be detered. If parents know smacking children will land them in jail (and schools, social workers, other family etc. are usually very good at picking up on these things these days) then the vast majority of them will never do it.

I'm hardly surprised by your stance. But the fact that you seem to boast about being smacked and you claim that it's made you who you are today is shameful and misguided.

It's comparable to those folk in the States who are anti-abortion yet fully support the death penalty. Incidentally Loz, do you support capital punishment? Because if you do, I think that would just cap it off.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#8)

by jkitleft on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 09:33:41 PM GMT

While I agree in principle with a smacking ban, I'm not sure it will stop parents smacking their children, or result in convictions. Incidentally, thankyou for pointing out the hypocrisy of many ion the 'pro-life' movement, when they support the death penalty.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#9)

by Loz on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 09:44:28 PM GMT

"Of course they'll be detered."

You show a complete and utter ignorance of social issues.

A parent that beats there child is not doing it for disipline, they are simply not only bad parents, but criminals.

They are however, not comparable to parents that smack their children - and thankfully no nanny state pushers like yourself will get their way on this one.

"I'm hardly surprised by your stance. But the fact that you seem to boast about being smacked and you claim that it's made you who you are today is shameful and misguided."

And just who the hell are you to judge me and my parents?

Basically, it is none of your business at the end of the day.

Many people will often speak of how a smack when they were younger has done them good. I have no pride I was smacked, I didn't like it - but it has probably helped me out.

"It's comparable to those folk in the States who are anti-abortion yet fully support the death penalty. Incidentally Loz, do you support capital punishment? Because if you do, I think that would just cap it off."

Absurd comparison number two. You cannot compare my support for the execution mass murderers and child abusers to your support for the murder of unborn babies.



[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#10)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 01:59:43 AM GMT

They are however, not comparable to parents that smack their children - and thankfully no nanny state pushers like yourself will get their way on this one.

I'm no nanny state pusher. I'm socially liberal and I'm actually very tolerant of most things as I've pointed out on other threads.

But being liberal doesn't mean allowing violence against children. But yes 'we' will get our way on this one eventually if that's the way you want to see it. The good people at the NSPCC have been fighting hard to see this ban implemented and they won't stop anytime soon. Even on Question Time tonight there seemed to be an attitude that the government had missed an opportunity on this one. The more this issue is discussed, the more parents actually realise how wrong smacking is. Every year more countries are adopting bans against corporal punishment at home (3 more this year I should point out) and eventually it will be our turn to be enlightened.

I have no pride I was smacked, I didn't like it - but it has probably helped me out.

And how has it 'helped' you exactly? You think that you are better off having been smacked rather than being disciplined using a non-violent method? Plenty of parents don't smack their kids, so do you think those kids turn out bad or something?

Absurd comparison number two. You cannot compare my support for the execution of mass murderers and child abusers to your support for the murder of unborn babies.

So basically, that's a 'yes', you do support the death penalty. How you can ever support putting another person to death is beyond me, especially how you went on about the saving the life of a fetus in the abortion debate. Hypocritical in the extreme and just plain wrong.

So lets get this straight Loz - you are anti-abortion, you support smacking children, you support the death penalty, you fanatically support the War on Terror and identify it as your number one issue and you are supporting a Republican to become the next President of the United States. Kind of sums it up doesn't it?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#16)

by Loz on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 11:26:45 AM GMT

"I'm no nanny state pusher. I'm socially liberal and I'm actually very tolerant of most things as I've pointed out on other threads."

Yet on this issue you wish to tell parents how they should parent. You must surely be able to distinguish between a parent that physically abuses their children and a parent that smacks their children.

"But being liberal doesn't mean allowing violence against children. But yes 'we' will get our way on this one eventually if that's the way you want to see it. The good people at the NSPCC have been fighting hard to see this ban implemented and they won't stop anytime soon. Even on Question Time tonight there seemed to be an attitude that the government had missed an opportunity on this one. The more this issue is discussed, the more parents actually realise how wrong smacking is. Every year more countries are adopting bans against corporal punishment at home (3 more this year I should point out) and eventually it will be our turn to be enlightened."

Apparently (one of) the reasons the government didn't go ahead with this is because their own research shows
it isn't popular amongst parents. So if it is going to happen, which I doubt, it certainly won't be anytime soon.

Smacking is something parents have done for generations - and is one of many methods parents use to bring up their children.

I don't think we should take it away from them.

"And how has it 'helped' you exactly? You think that you are better off having been smacked rather than being disciplined using a non-violent method? Plenty of parents don't smack their kids, so do you think those kids turn out bad or something?"

I think it has probably helped me in some way, as to who I have developed in. I'm not saying it was massively significant, because I honestly couldn't measure, but it certainly did bring discipline to me as a child. That is the method my parents used, and plenty other people I know too will admit to it also. I'm not judging those who don't smack - it is another method of parenting, and certainly it can work. The one thing you should realise with parenting, is that, a) all sets of parents are unique, and b) every child is unique. There is no magic recipe for bringing up your children, and in an adult society we really should respect other parents methods in how they discipline their children.

There are parents who physically harm their children, for completely different reasons - these are the people that we should target - but they are already breaking current laws, and would not be deterred by any new smacking laws because what they are doing is far far worse than smacking.

"So basically, that's a 'yes', you do support the death penalty. How you can ever support putting another person to death is beyond me, especially how you went on about the saving the life of a fetus in the abortion debate. Hypocritical in the extreme and just plain wrong."

lol you say 'hypocritical' and in the same paragraph you also say:

"How you can ever support putting another person to death is beyond me,"

When that is what you will happily do to an unborn child. You are the hypcorit and your disgusting comparison between some of the very worst humans, and innocent unborn babies really is telling.

"So lets get this straight Loz - you are anti-abortion, you support smacking children, you support the death penalty, you fanatically support the War on Terror and identify it as your number one issue and you are supporting a Republican to become the next President of the United States. Kind of sums it up doesn't it? "

Again, get your facts right before you smear. I am not 'anti abortion' - we spent a long while debating this and I made very clear up until a certain point I am strongly pro choice. Don't misrepresent what others say - it makes you seem desperate.

I am pro death penalty - as pollshave shown a majority are in the UK.

I am pro W.O.T as our Labour government was and still is.

And I support a Republican as I've said before because he is the best of a very bad bunch.

It is called having principle - and it very different from being a pathetic stooge to whatever one singly politician or party has to say.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#20)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 12:25:33 PM GMT

Yet on this issue you wish to tell parents how they should parent. You must surely be able to distinguish between a parent that physically abuses their children and a parent that smacks their children.

Smacking is physical abuse. I wish to give children the freedom from physical violence - that's a noble cause and something that requires a sense of morality.

Apparently (one of) the reasons the government didn't go ahead with this is because their own research shows
it isn't popular amongst parents. So if it is going to happen, which I doubt, it certainly won't be anytime soon.

Smacking is something parents have done for generations - and is one of many methods parents use to bring up their children.

So that makes it alright does it? Just because people have always done it, we should allow it to continue? Should fox hunting continue on the same basis? (Although you'd probably support that as well).

Who cares if isn't popular with the majority of parents - the war in Iraq isn't the least bit popular but we've been there for a good number of years, never stopped us then.

Governments should do what is right and protecting children from violence is right and physical violence against children is wrong.

b) every child is unique. There is no magic recipe for bringing up your children, and in an adult society we really should respect other parents methods in how they discipline their children.

Every child is unique yet none of them deserve to be assaulted, which smacking is. And we should never respect smacking in any form. If parents want to beat their children with rods like Victorian times then that wouldn't be accepted, so smacking shouldn't be either.

You are the hypcorit and your disgusting comparison between some of the very worst humans, and innocent unborn babies really is telling.

Yeh right Loz, I think it's clear you're the hypocrit here. You bang on about the 'rights' of a fetus yet you're quite happy to smack an innocent child and put another one of your fellow human beings to death and call it justice. Disgusting.

I am pro death penalty - as pollshave shown a majority are in the UK.

So that's alright then is it. If the majority of people told you to jump off a cliff you'd do it? Are you capable of independent thought? Shame there's no TV programme coming up about smacking, perhaps you could do one of your trademark u-turns after watching it.

And I support a Republican as I've said before because he is the best of a very bad bunch.

It is called having principle - and it very different from being a pathetic stooge to whatever one singly politician or party has to say.

Principled? You think supporting a Republican for President is principled? Supporting the death penalty and smacking is not being principled, it's being immoral and cowardly and not standing up for what is right.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#25)

by jkitleft on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:19:42 PM GMT

Good god. We have a Labour supporter who supports the death penalty. I've been called 'wierd' all my life. I think at the most, 33% of the people in this country are not wierd. The one's who are against the death penalty. If you are a relative of someone who's been killed, and you think someone should face the gallows, I wouldn't blame you, I'd probably briefly feel the same way. But if you have nothing to do with the case, and you're begging for someone's blood, I'm sorry, but that is wierd.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#26)

by jkitleft on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:26:17 PM GMT

and just to be clear Loz, it's a utopian form of simplistic thinking to suggest legislating against abortion will reduce deaths. There is a high probability that the woman and child will die if not in a safe, controlled environment for the abortion. I am trying to protect the lifes of babies with my views, your views often inadvertedly mean that that the lifes of the pregnant women aren't. I know you're pro-choice, I'm just saying that trying to reduce abortion through restrictive, rather than more supportive measures is not the right attitude. it's another form of utopian simplistic thinking, to say that criminal-bad, death penalty-get rid of criminal, death penalty-good. Often these views lead to far more of a denial of human rights, than you think my views might.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#33)

by Loz on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 10:48:46 PM GMT

"and just to be clear Loz, it's a utopian form of simplistic thinking to suggest legislating against abortion will reduce deaths"

It will the live of babies. The number of abortions has massively increased since it was legalized.

"There is a high probability that the woman and child will die if not in a safe, controlled environment for the abortion."

True, but it really is no precise science in predicting how many will turn to this extremely dangerous 'alternative'.

I think in modern society, where the risks are clear, it would be significantly less than years ago.

Just look at other countries in mainland Europe and Ireland, there is no 'major' problem with backstreet abortions.

" I am trying to protect the lifes of babies with my views, your views often inadvertedly mean that that the lifes of the pregnant women aren't. "

And that is sad - I certainly think if more help were given, women would be more comfortable with the pregnancy. The trouble is, not enough help is given, they are not properly educated on the subject and many often regret it in years to come.

There is a high rate of depression amongst women that have abortions.

"I know you're pro-choice, I'm just saying that trying to reduce abortion through restrictive, rather than more supportive measures is not the right attitude. it's another form of utopian simplistic thinking, to say that criminal-bad, death penalty-get rid of criminal, death penalty-good. Often these views lead to far more of a denial of human rights, than you think my views might. "

You could argue the same thing about criminal activity could you not? What is the difference?

I want women to be able to have the right to have an abortion, but to decide at 20 weeks that you don't want to go through with it, is at best, not fair on the child, at worst a crime.

As for the death penalty - I don't like it in reality, but for some, I think it is the best option - those that commit the very worst and most evil crimes in my opinion, no longer deserve to live, those that have taken the lives of others, do not deserve to live at my expense for the rest of their life.

I think it can be a suitable punishment, and I don't apologise for it. I do however accept, that most nations are now moving away from this form of punishment


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#37)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 01:12:33 AM GMT

Just look at other countries in mainland Europe and Ireland, there is no 'major' problem with backstreet abortions.

I think using Ireland as an example was a bit of a mistake here. The reason why there are few 'backstreet' abortions in Ireland is because thousands of pregnant Irish women travel to Great Britain every year to have abortions - estimates range from 1500 to 10,000 annually.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#44)

by Loz on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:16:59 PM GMT

Ok that is a fair point.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#32)

by Loz on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 10:36:40 PM GMT

"Good god. We have a Labour supporter who supports the death penalty. I've been called 'wierd' all my life. I think at the most, 33% of the people in this country are not wierd. The one's who are against the death penalty. If you are a relative of someone who's been killed, and you think someone should face the gallows, I wouldn't blame you, I'd probably briefly feel the same way. But if you have nothing to do with the case, and you're begging for someone's blood, I'm sorry, but that is wierd."

That's an interesting take on it - but its nonsense.

Almost everybody has an opinion on justice, and what is right and what is wrong. You are trying to suggest the majority of people in this country are 'wierd' and those that oppose it are some how not. That is a holier-than-thou attititude.


As for Labour supporters that support the death penalty, you'd be surprised, while amongst the membership I would be in the minority, plenty of Labour supporters/voters would be on the pro death penalty side.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#45)

by jkitleft on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:21:46 PM GMT

maybe they aren't wierd, but a view of begging for someone's blood sure is.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#48)

by Loz on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:30:48 PM GMT

I'm not begging for blood - I want justice.

It might be weird if I wanted to see it - which I don't.

I have no desire to witness it, and I would expect it to be done in a humane way.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#30)

by Loz on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 10:29:38 PM GMT

"Smacking is physical abuse. I wish to give children the freedom from physical violence - that's a noble cause and something that requires a sense of morality."

My sense of morality is perfectly fine thank you.

As for it being physical abuse - that is your opinion, I don't hope to convince you and visa versa so I'll leave that one.

"So that makes it alright does it? Just because people have always done it, we should allow it to continue? Should fox hunting continue on the same basis? (Although you'd probably support that as well)."

Actually I don't support fox hunting and was in favour of the ban. As for making it 'alright', no of course not. It was a statement of fact and part of the larger point I was making.

"Who cares if isn't popular with the majority of parents - the war in Iraq isn't the least bit popular but we've been there for a good number of years, never stopped us then."

lol - I'm not using opposition as an arguement, I was just explaining why I can't see it happening, which is what is being discussed.

I wish someone would tell the anti war movement that, because they seem to think the fact they had a large march makes them right.


"Governments should do what is right and protecting children from violence is right and physical violence against children is wrong."

And thankfully they are which is why the government opposed this.

" If parents want to beat their children with rods like Victorian times then that wouldn't be accepted, so smacking shouldn't be either."

Again, you there is a clear difference between the kind of assault that went on then and a gentle yet effective smack today.

"Yeh right Loz, I think it's clear you're the hypocrit here. You bang on about the 'rights' of a fetus yet you're quite happy to smack an innocent child and put another one of your fellow human beings to death and call it justice. Disgusting."

And who is worse, me for supporting the execution of a vile paedophile, you for wanting him to live, or you for supporting the murder of an unborn child or me for wanting that child to live?

There is no comparison.

"So that's alright then is it. If the majority of people told you to jump off a cliff you'd do it? Are you capable of independent thought?"

I'd say the same to you who will follow whatever leftist turn the anti government Labour movements will take. I am the one that has demonstrated independent thought - you have shown yourself to be a stooge to the left, to nanny states, and are a supporter of infanticide.

The reason I bought that up, as will explain to another poster in a moment is that a majority support it - i.e. many Labour supporters also. You once again tried to question my support for the Labour Party - whilst in reality the sort of people you support have left the party in the shit.

"Principled? You think supporting a Republican for President is principled? Supporting the death penalty and smacking is not being principled, it's being immoral and cowardly and not standing up for what is right. "

Oh please. Coming from somebody that thinks they support of the rights of children from violence but will then support the murder of an unborn child, using flimsy excuses about them 'not being alive' your insults mean little.







[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#38)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 01:26:08 AM GMT

And who is worse, me for supporting the execution of a vile paedophile, you for wanting him to live, or you for supporting the murder of an unborn child or me for wanting that child to live?

All human beings have a right to life and not only do I want all human beings to never be put to death on the basis of justice, but I think it's absolutely vital that the death penalty never returns here. A fetus is not a fully developed human being and whilst abortion is not a positive thing, it is vital that a woman has the right to choose.

I'd say the same to you who will follow whatever leftist turn the anti government Labour movements will take. I am the one that has demonstrated independent thought - you have shown yourself to be a stooge to the left, to nanny states, and are a supporter of infanticide.

Infanticide? I think you're loosing the plot on this one.

I'm not anti-government at all and I certainly don't follow whatever leftist turn there is. Economically, I'm probably towards the right of the party. I have demonstrated independent thought by standing up for what I firmly believe in and that's why I create threads like these in the first place.

You openly admitted u-turning on your opinion on abortion on the basis of a single TV programme. Hardly demonstrates independent thought.

Oh please. Coming from somebody that thinks they support of the rights of children from violence but will then support the murder of an unborn child, using flimsy excuses about them 'not being alive' your insults mean little

My views are honourable and noble. Violence against children is always wrong. But I certainly don't believe abortion is murder at all. Unborn fetuses are not 'alive' and therefore cannot be 'killed' - they can be 'aborted'. It was a Labour government who legalised abortion and I would hope Labour members and supporters would always fight for a woman's right to choose.

I think most would find it bizarre Loz that you as a Labour supporter could possibly support a Republican for President, especially after the disaster of the current Republican incumbent.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#40)

by jkitleft on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 11:42:59 AM GMT

oh please Loz. we 'support' infanticide and murder. pretty high and mighty for a supporter of  the death penalty. we're just being realistic about abortion. abortion is 0often about economic situations. so don't you think by supporting Guiliani, you're just furthering the cycle of abortion happening, as he does not support vital measures that may combat poverty in the United States


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#47)

by Loz on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:29:26 PM GMT

Mayor Guiliani holds a pretty liberal position (In America) on abortion and most social issues.

When he was mayor of new york, abortions went down, and adoptions went up.

He has a solid record in that regard, while being personally opposed to abortion.

Besides, which measures are you specifically talking about?

His record as mayor of new york economically while being pretty conservative worked very well in new york. Without question the very liberal city, was transformed by his tenure. He was the first republican to win two terms as mayor.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#49)

by jkitleft on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 08:49:31 PM GMT

Giuliani's big tent politics worked well in Liberal New York, i.e. endorcing Democrats and liberal positions, but so did Mitt 'Guantanomo' Romney, and Giuliani u-turning as well. But he's endorsing far more conservative positions now, which will further the cycle of abortion.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#50)

by Loz on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 08:56:50 PM GMT

I'm not sure which U turns you are refering to.

Rudy hasn't changed, in reality, his positions are still pretty Liberal in American terms, at least within the GOP but on abortion he has stood his ground, and taken a significant hit for it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#46)

by Loz on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:26:25 PM GMT

"All human beings have a right to life and not only do I want all human beings to never be put to death on the basis of justice, but I think it's absolutely vital that the death penalty never returns here. A fetus is not a fully developed human being and whilst abortion is not a positive thing, it is vital that a woman has the right to choose."

And I don't want to take that right away - I simply want common sense to prevail and for that limit to raise.

Even more liberal abortionists might say to you a woment at 26 weeks is being deprived of her choice.

As for it not being a human - there are some horrible tales of abortions where the poor baby has come out crying, I read an article only the other week about some 'aborted' twins that wouldn't stop crying. I don't think I need to explain what happened next.

Aside from that, children are surviving at the very same time as others at the same stage are being aborted. I just cannot support that.

"You openly admitted u-turning on your opinion on abortion on the basis of a single TV programme. Hardly demonstrates independent thought."

I made clear that before hand I was not paticuarly eduicated on the matter and also said that I have since done my own research on the matter to better educate myself.

The facts I am using to justify my position could have come from any source, they are facts and I stand by them - tv programme/internet/book/newspaper/word of mouth or otherwise.

"My views are honourable and noble. Violence against children is always wrong. But I certainly don't believe abortion is murder at all. Unborn fetuses are not 'alive' and therefore cannot be 'killed' - they can be 'aborted'."

Hmm, your position is one of self contradiction. You support abortion up until the legal limit of 24 weeks - but then not after? Why is that?

In your eyes, technically until the day they are unborn, they are nothing but a 'foetus' so why the contradiction?


"I think most would find it bizarre Loz that you as a Labour supporter could possibly support a Republican for President, especially after the disaster of the current Republican incumbent. "

I am not supporting for the party.

Let me make clear again, my number one issue is the war on terrorism - I see it as the struggle of our generation. Sadly the Democrats, for political reasons have largely turned their backs on this and I could never support a candidate of their that held such an opinion.

But hey, if Joe Lierberman decides to run again one day - I'll happily support him.

I'm not so much concerned with their domestic politics, however interesting it might be.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#53)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 09:49:12 PM GMT

As for it not being a human - there are some horrible tales of abortions where the poor baby has come out crying, I read an article only the other week about some 'aborted' twins that wouldn't stop crying. I don't think I need to explain what happened next.

You can't describe something like that and then give no evidence. I find it difficult to believe that that happened in this country, especially with the 24 week rule. There's no way any fetus at 24 weeks or lower would be capable of noticably crying for long periods. The only way it could have possibly happened was if it was a late-term abortion where possibly the mother's life was at risk - in which case if was vital that the abortion was carried out.

And for the record, by views are solidly consistant - they are socially liberal and supportive of human rights. Your views on abortion, smacking and capital punishment are solidly social conservative, which is disappointing to see from a Labour supporter.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#54)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 09:50:21 PM GMT

*'my views', not 'by views'.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#63)

by Loz on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:50:25 PM GMT

It was in an article I read the other day. I did do a search for it, but couldn't find it - it was an 'opinion' peace, so it likely wasn't archived on the net.

"And for the record, by views are solidly consistant - they are socially liberal and supportive of human rights. Your views on abortion, smacking and capital punishment are solidly social conservative, which is disappointing to see from a Labour supporter. "

I'm afraid they are not - you have defended the right to abort the un born - and yet also support the current limit. That is a position that conflicts.

And as for smacking - it is a LABOUR government which has just turned down the opportunity to re view the law there.

Also note, there are Labour MPs who also take a quite conservative stand on the issue.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#64)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:00:53 PM GMT

No, it is you're views which are conflicting - you say abortions are murder and yet propose only reducing the limit to 20 weeks which would barely decrease the number of abortions per year.

It's interesting to note that the Labour led government in Wales seems more interested in the idea of banning smacking. They may well push through with it, and if they do it will only be a matter of time before England does too.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#65)

by Loz on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:40:20 PM GMT

"No, it is you're views which are conflicting - you say abortions are murder and yet propose only reducing the limit to 20 weeks which would barely decrease the number of abortions per year."

Actually I said between 17 and 20 - and I based this on the development of the foetus, and also the ability to feel pain.

You made the point that it couldn't be murder - because at that time they are 'unborn' so it is ok - yet you do support abortion only to the legal limit.

That is a blatant contradiction.

"It's interesting to note that the Labour led government in Wales seems more interested in the idea of banning smacking. They may well push through with it, and if they do it will only be a matter of time before England does too. "

They may well - but the British government has said no to the idea.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#28)

by SimonHH on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:52:17 PM GMT

You should be expelled from the Labour Party, in my view. You'd look out of date of David Cameron's Tory Party.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#31)

by Loz on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 10:31:28 PM GMT

I'm not a member of the Labour Party as I have said before. So don't worry about me being expelled - although it is nice that your believe in democracy - I do wonder if you would support the expulsion of the stalinist supporters of Latin American dicators.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#34)

by SimonHH on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 11:44:01 PM GMT

I certainly think that supporting dictatorial regimes sits uncomfortably with socialism. I'm glad to see the back of Galloway, for example. If you are *really* talking about Venezula, then I disagree with your description of that regime.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#35)

by Loz on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 11:47:18 PM GMT

Hmm well no not quite - while past elections have question marks above them - the more recent election, last year, he won fair and square.

Do you support his regime?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#41)

by SimonHH on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 11:51:01 AM GMT

Not a simple yes/ no answer, I'm afraid. I support some decisions it has made. I support the suggestion that the US should keep its nose out. On the other hand, Chavez's lauding of Iran smacks of quasi-Stalinist 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' politics. I prefer just to say that I support the ordinary people of Venezula. I don't believe in political messiahs!


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#43)

by Loz on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:16:18 PM GMT

Ok thats fine - but he considers the president of iran a personal friend - he is also bankrolling the last dictator in Europe in Belarus as well as his friendship with the tyrant castro.




[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#6)

by orzr on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 08:27:58 PM GMT

Seems to me that this is not about smacking. In the last week we've seen abandoned: a) ban on smacking b) paying for rubbish collections and c) taking 5% of saved funds from schools. It looks as though someone is systematically going through the list weeding out everything that could become a stick for the Tories to beat the government with.


Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#7)

by Parishpumpspin on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 08:40:46 PM GMT

Might be some truth in that, what concerns me is thus: I thought the age of last minute policy changes died with Blair's retirement, that we would enter an age of thought through decisions and some reconnection with our progressive side, alas its starting to look a little like brown has simply brought in a new set of scared children as advisors...


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#11)

by alexhilton on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:21:39 AM GMT

I feel like I'm inviting opprobrium but I instinctively oppose an outright ban on smacking children. I believe there are many problems with parenting where government could offer support - and if that support were available, less smacking would occur.

I do believe that any child who is being smacked regularly obviously isn't responding - but there are children who are smacked two or three times in their entire childhood and it's hard to argue that that's abuse.


Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#12)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:29:58 AM GMT

Not really Alex. Violence is violence. If I smacked by next door neighbour "two or three times", I'm sure he'd claim 'abuse' and I'd get locked up.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#13)

by alexhilton on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:53:44 AM GMT

I suspect you wouldn't get arrested for the kind of smack i would be prepared to administer - more likely be laughed at.

But my point, which is arguable, is that the boundary of acceptability in this matter is grey and therefore legally difficult to enforce. Can you imagine the court case where a judge is defining the difference between a smack and any other physical contact?

Secondly, parents' scope for abusing their children is by no means limited to physical violence - if we want a useful child protection law, then it has to go further than the physical.

Thirdly, while I whole-heartedly support the ideal of bringing forth a world where violence is no part of life, it's just not like that. There are all sorts of perverse values that persevere - just look at public attitudes to sex education, race, nudity, poverty.

We could as a society make a decision to social-engineer a generation to have different and maybe better values than are normal today - but all these issues hang together and can't be addressed in isolation.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#14)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:38:37 AM GMT

Alex, I think it's very clear for a judge to decide on what is a smack and what isn't. And anyway, this is clutching at straws here. The principle of the matter is that violence against children is always wrong and should be illegal.


2. I agree that abusing children is not just about physical violence, but that hardly justifies not supporting a smacking ban does it? Two wrongs don't make a right. It's better to have a ban on at least physical violence than no ban whatsoever. And also physical violence against children is also easier to detect and punish than emotional damage against children.


3. So you're saying that because violence is just a way of life, then you'd do nothing to try and eliminate that violence? Especially against children? It's nothing to do with social engineering - when capital punishment was abolished I didn't hear anyone claim that was 'social engineering'. It's just a simple difference between right and wrong. And violence against children is always wrong.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#15)

by alexhilton on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 04:35:59 AM GMT

Don't get me onto criminal justice - it's an area where i think a great deal of work needs to be done.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#17)

by Loz on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 11:28:52 AM GMT

lol aso you're really going to smack him on the ass?

The most likely legal outcome is you being charged with sexual assault.

If you however, PUNCHED him, then sure, you would be done for physical assault.

A physical assault is not the same as a smack.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#19)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 12:11:35 PM GMT

Who said smacking has to be on the behind? If I smacked him in the face or on the body then that's abuse.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#29)

by Loz on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 10:17:40 PM GMT

I don't approve of a smack around the face and I don't know of any parents that do that.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#18)

by Prbo on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 11:40:58 AM GMT

NorthernMonkey

Were you ever smacked as a child?


Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#21)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 12:26:00 PM GMT

I was, were you?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#22)

by Just Labour on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 01:33:50 PM GMT

"I'll also be interested to see how those who have holier-than-thou attitudes against abortions view this one. Will their moral outrage at harming potential children extend to moral outrage at harming living, breathing, fully alive children I wonder?"

I have the same approachfor both issues: I choose not to smack my kids same as I wouldnt have an abortion. But I want to leave others with the right to make their own decisions, but within a legal framework of when that is acceptable and when it is not.


Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#23)

by Prbo on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:11:38 PM GMT

I wasn't, as a matter of fact.  What were your thoughts at the time?


Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#24)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:09:16 PM GMT

At the time? Well I was against it obviously! I don't know any kids who enjoy being smacked. I'm still against it now and my parents agree with me.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#27)

by SimonHH on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:50:58 PM GMT

It is a pleasure to agree with you about something!


Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#39)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 01:28:24 AM GMT

That's good to hear Simon!


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#36)

by Lorin on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 12:42:29 AM GMT

I'm just amazed, now it's confirmed Loz isn't a party member that gives me some releif.
Loz if you support the death penalty, the WOT (which the government are reluctant to support note no minister has used that phrase), you never support any SI candidates but candidates to the right of our own conservative party, are more pro american than Blair since you didn't want the americans to cooperate with investigations into the murder of British Soldiers "by accident", you complain about trade unions, you condemn a democratically elected president of a country abused by the US in the past for not renewing a television lisence (which I don't agree with) (reccomend John Pilger's documaentary "War on Democracy", perhaps that will make you change your mind) yet you won't condemn Saudi-Arabia because they are our buddies. Even someone on the right of the party like NorthernMonkey is shocked by how right wing you are , are you sure your supporting the right party.


Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#52)

by Loz on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 09:12:48 PM GMT

"the WOT (which the government are reluctant to support note no minister has used that phrase),"

Correct, they can dress it up however they like - they support the same struggle as I do against those who seek to destroy out way of life, and I'll settle for that.

"you never support any SI candidates but candidates to the right of our own conservative party, "

I support the best candidate for the job to be honest, it is one of the benefits of not being affailiated directly. I have however support the Labour government, which is more than can be said for some!

"are more pro american than Blair since you didn't want the americans to cooperate with investigations into the murder of British Soldiers "by accident""

I take the fist part of your statement as a compliment. As I said before, I don't see what exactly can be gained from it. I have not opposed American cooperation with our military into these matters - it is important, and expected being as we do have such a close relationship. However, what I specifically oppose is the desire for some sort of show trial, the notion that we should expect the soldiers in question to appear before some sort of court.

On this subject, what I did find abhorent was the ITV News decision to NAME soldiers involved in these incidents. I think that was an absolute outrage, and nothing was said about it.  

"you complain about trade unions"

The only time I have commented on unions on this site was in relation to the illegal prison guard strike - and it was just that, illegal, as was ruled, and why they went back to work!

I am not opposed to unionism so I think you are misunderstood here.

"you condemn a democratically elected president of a country abused by the US in the past for not renewing a television lisence "

Abused by the US? Thats absolutely false. You've been watching too much 'Alo Presidente' I think. 

"(which I don't agree with) (reccomend John Pilger's documaentary "War on Democracy", perhaps that will make you change your mind) "

If you don't agree with it, why are you criticising me for the same thing?

"yet you won't condemn Saudi-Arabia because they are our buddies. "

I have not said that - If I ask one think of you, it is to be accurate in what you say about me.

I have been critical of the saudi regime - however, we need to cooperate with them in the W.O.T to not do so would place the lives of our citizens and soldiers in great danger.

"Even someone on the right of the party like NorthernMonkey is shocked by how right wing you are "

I wouldn't consider Northern Monkey to the right of the party.

"are you sure your supporting the right party. "

The simply answer is yes.





[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#55)

by Lorin on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 11:53:23 PM GMT

The government don't support a War on Terror, they are smarter than that, they have now adopted the desicion to win the hearts and minds of the regular afghans, and combat insurgants. And are now handing over control of Iraq to the Iraqis, quite the opposite of Washington's stance.

So you support the Labour party in the UK but not others?, OK.....

Americans who kill British troops should be put to trial in a criminal court and punished, which "our american allies" won't do, just a thing called a backbone and standing up for something, and not letting the Americans get away with murder.

If you really beleive that the US interest hasn't been behind the murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians then you really should be on stage. The US helped the military overthrow a democratically elected government to be replaced with a military government, and then all the US broadcasters claimed that anti chavez protesters were killing civilians ,when in fact the military was shooting at them. Thr US isn't seen as a force for good in South America simply because it wasn't, it placed it's own interests over the lives of innocents. You have been watching to much Fox News I think.
I said I don't agree with the refusal to renew a television lisence, I also disagree with his alliance with Iran. However, I beleive he is now focusing on his own citizens iterests, and investing money in education and health and eliminating illiteracy.

The Saudi regeime is an evil dictatorship who share the values of many of the terrorists we are fighting. I think it is hipocritical to shout against someone like Chavez, and ignore someone like King Abdallah.

Do you seriously beleive that NorthernMonkey isn't on the right of the party???, He is on the New Labour side of the party, supported Johnson for deputy and could be described as a Blairite (correct me if I'm wrong NorthernMonkey), if you think he isn't then you must be to the right of Margaret Thatcher.

Lets get this straight: The Labour Party is against the death penalty which you aren't.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#56)

by Loz on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:20:41 AM GMT

"The government don't support a War on Terror, they are smarter than that, they have now adopted the desicion to win the hearts and minds of the regular afghans, and combat insurgants. And are now handing over control of Iraq to the Iraqis, quite the opposite of Washington's stance."

WRONG

Our troops are still fighting a war on terror in afghanistan.

Only a complete idiot would think that we are not fighting in the w.o.t.

"So you support the Labour party in the UK but not others?, OK....."

Are you just stupid or a complete liar? Or both? I did not say that.

"Americans who kill British troops should be put to trial in a criminal court and punished, which "our american allies" won't do, just a thing called a backbone and standing up for something, and not letting the Americans get away with murder."

That might be your wet dream - but to try a soldier from a friendly country in a british court of law for an accidental death is unheard of and would never be allowed by any sane government.

"If you really beleive that the US interest hasn't been behind the murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians then you really should be on stage."

If you do - you should be in a home for the mentally ill. You position is not based on fact, it is your absurd and baseless conspiracy nonsense.

But I guess you could count ones security as a self interest in which case I'll let you have it.


"The US helped the military overthrow a democratically elected government to be replaced with a military government,"

There is no proof of this - it is a lie and unproven accusation by chavez. (one of many)

"and then all the US broadcasters claimed that anti chavez protesters were killing civilians ,when in fact the military was shooting at them."

The Chavez controlled militia did kill 14 civilians. Chavez ordered tv stations off of the air to silence the protests.

"I beleive he is now focusing on his own citizens iterests, and investing money in education and health and eliminating illiteracy."

He is also investing his money on russian, iranian, and belarus'n military technology.

T"he Saudi regeime is an evil dictatorship who share the values of many of the terrorists we are fighting. I think it is hipocritical to shout against someone like Chavez, and ignore someone like King Abdallah."

Again, you are a disgusting stalinist liar. I have criticised the regime. Read what I said and stop being an idiot. The transcript is just above this one.

"Do you seriously beleive that NorthernMonkey isn't on the right of the party???, He is on the New Labour side of the party, supported Johnson for deputy and could be described as a Blairite (correct me if I'm wrong NorthernMonkey), if you think he isn't then you must be to the right of Margaret Thatcher."

I don't know him all that well, maybe I prejudged him. My feeling was that he was more centre/left of the party. Either way, it isn't important to me.

"Lets get this straight: The Labour Party is against the death penalty which you aren't."

And lets also get this straight - I am not a member of the Labour Party so it isn't important to me. Lets also make clear, polls show a majority favour the death penalty in this country. I'll settle for that.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#57)

by Lorin on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:56:05 AM GMT

The WOT is something that exists only it your and George Bush's imagination, yes we do fight the Taliban but we must also win the hearts and minds of the average Afghan, so he won't have sympathy for the Taliban and will se them for what they are.

I'm not stupid or a liar unlike some, you said that one of the benefits of being unafilliated was supporting the "right person" for the job, in your case this are very "right" wing people, Giulaini and Sarko, presumably Merkel as well , hence you support the UK labour party but not the French or German ones, and not the sister party of the Labour party in the States.

The US soldiers who kill British troops should be judged in a court out side the UK, either a UK or international one, if the case were the opposite I would suggest the same.

So you are basically saying that the US has always played a positive role in South America, and played no part in overthrowing democratic governments and installing right wing dictators and murdering civilians?

There was funding and backing for the coup from the US government by people like Elliott Abrams and Otto Riech, people who were actively involved in the coup and were organising it like Pedro Carmona visited Washington many times before the coup. Us television distorted images of pro chavez supporters returning fire on police to make it look like they were attacking civilians again I reccomend John Pilger's documaentary.


I didn't claim you didn't critisize it, but that it is a vile regeime that does more evil than Chavez could even imagine of doing and that it is hipocritical that you react with such passion to a refusal by a democratically elected government to renew a TV lisence which I opposed, compared to an evil regeime like Saudi Arabia.

You claim you support the death penalty because it is popular, I will watch my language, which you should do more often, but opposition to the war in Iraq is popular, so is opposition to trident and ID cards, I don't see you supporting those issues because they are popular.
Let me get this straight, if the public thought that all imigration should be stopped, HRA should be abolished and that there should be no taxes would you support that? I remember some time back that Charlie Brooker in the Guardian said of Cameron that he would support peadophillia if a poll suggested that 99% of the population were in favour of it, not saying you are but think abour it.

And BTW, try to swear less, I will as well, it just makes people take you less seriously



[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#58)

by Loz on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 01:13:02 AM GMT

"The WOT is something that exists only it your and George Bush's imagination, yes we do fight the Taliban but we must also win the hearts and minds of the average Afghan, so he won't have sympathy for the Taliban and will se them for what they are."

The term maybe - but sadly for you - we are fighting it however we define it.

"I'm not stupid or a liar unlike some,"

You have either lied or completely misquoted and misrepresented what I have said. Being the contradictory evidence is in this very thread, I would have to assume you have lied.

 "you said that one of the benefits of being unafilliated was supporting the "right person" for the job, in your case this are very "right" wing people, Giulaini and Sarko, presumably Merkel as well , hence you support the UK labour party but not the French or German ones, and not the sister party of the Labour party in the States."

I support what is right for the country - which has included the Labour Party for over 10 years!

I have little interest, due to a lack of time in domestic german and french politics. What their parties stand for, is something I am not familiar with. The Labour banner is more diverse than just a name. I choose Rudy in this election, in the past I was a fan of Bill Clinton a demorcrat.

"The US soldiers who kill British troops should be judged in a court out side the UK, either a UK or international one, if the case were the opposite I would suggest the same."

That is insane, unrealistic and would compromise relations. Historically it is something we have not engaged in, and thankfully we likely never will. Sad as accidental deaths maybe - we would also have to put in prison hundreds of our own troops for errors they have made, and even the de menezes officers. You support that?

"So you are basically saying that the US has always played a positive role in South America, and played no part in overthrowing democratic governments and installing right wing dictators and murdering civilians?"


Nope, I have in the past been very critical of their south American policy.

"There was funding and backing for the coup from the US government by people like Elliott Abrams and Otto Riech,"

There is no proof that. There is accusations, namely from the president of venezeula, but nothing concrete at all.

"people who were actively involved in the coup and were organising it like Pedro Carmona visited Washington many times before the coup."

As do politicians from across the globe. The general that led the coup had no ties to the U.S.

"Us television distorted images of pro chavez supporters returning fire on police to make it look like they were attacking civilians again I reccomend John Pilger's documaentary."

I'll take a rain check on that thanks. What US tv did is not my concern. I get frustrated by misresentations of the iraq war - on our tv - but I just leave it alone. What concerns me more was the chavez forced black out of the original TRADE UNION protests. 


"I didn't claim you didn't critisize it, but that it is a vile regeime that does more evil than Chavez could even imagine of doing and that it is hipocritical that you react with such passion to a refusal by a democratically elected government to renew a TV lisence which I opposed, compared to an evil regeime like Saudi Arabia."

You post implied a lack of criticism, in fact support of the kings regime. That is false. I condemn them - I condemn chavez. What is the problem?

"You claim you support the death penalty because it is popular,"

Again - a complete and utter lie on your part. I have not said that.

"I will watch my language, which you should do more often, but opposition to the war in Iraq is popular, so is opposition to trident and ID cards, I don't see you supporting those issues because they are popular."

My reference to death penalties polls was in response to your comments about the majority of Labour members being opposed.

"And BTW, try to swear less, I will as well, it just makes people take you less seriously"

Take my advice in return - don't lie or misrepresent what other say.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#59)

by Lorin on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 01:23:34 AM GMT

Don't accuse me of lying, to be honest I really can't be bothered, this has gone way off topic and will go on for ever and will come to nothing as do your discussions with other people. I'm glad to hear that you aren't a party member, just keep voting Labour :)


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#60)

by jkitleft on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:17:00 AM GMT

I don't believe that police officers or soldiers, and certainly not politicians, should have the equivolant of diplomatic immunity. If ordinary citizens make grave mistakes that are against the law, they have to be tried to, the armed forces and police forces are not higher beings


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#62)

by Loz on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:45:14 PM GMT

So in that case, historically your position would have resulted in thousands of UK troops being placed behind in prison.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#61)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 04:08:58 PM GMT

Do you seriously beleive that NorthernMonkey isn't on the right of the party???, He is on the New Labour side of the party, supported Johnson for deputy and could be described as a Blairite (correct me if I'm wrong NorthernMonkey)

That seems a reasonable account Lorin - I probably am on the right of the party, I did support Johnson for deputy leader and I was a Blair supporter.

However, saying that I am still very progressive in my outlook both economically and socially. I would describe myself as a social-democrat. And I don't believe the party should endlessly become more right-wing to satisfy middle England. There are certain principles which Labour should always believe in and fight for.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#42)

by alexhilton on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 01:29:24 PM GMT

Loz, this debate's diverged from smacking to other interesting areas. why don't you write a piece about the death penalty? i think that might stimulate some discussion.


Re: Should smacking children be banned in the UK? (#51)

by Loz on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 08:57:58 PM GMT

I have written pieces before, but it never makes it onto the main list - I might be doing something wrong whilst submitting.


[ Parent ]

Should smacking children be banned in the UK? | 65 comments (65 topical)